Re: PETA's Ties to Terror

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:53:57 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:18:46 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> ><snip>
>> >> Your claim rests on your memory of a copy you had
>> >> 14 years ago, and though you've been shown recent
>> >> evidence proving 90% of the animals used in labs aren't
>> >> protected by the AWA for the simple reason that they
>> >> aren't listed as animals, you choose to just snip that
>> >> evidence away and carry on insisting your claim is
>> >> correct nevertheless.
>> >
>> >They don't provide for the elimination of these animals and also protect
>> >them in the same document. That's all I'm trying to say.
>>
>> No. What you're saying is that, "The AWA is probably
>> the best piece of legislation that is there to protect
>> lab animals", and this claim rests on your memory of a
>> copy of something you had 14 years ago, and though
>> you've been shown recent evidence proving 90% of the
>> animals used in labs aren't protected by the AWA, for
>> the simple reason that they aren't listed as animals, you
>> choose to just snip that evidence away and carry on
>> insisting your claim is correct nevertheless, so why is
>> that?
>
>I think the AWA is the best piece of legislation currently 
>there to protect lab animals, but that doesn't mean its perfect.
>
It's far from perfect if it neglects 90% of lab animals as
being animals.

>I already knew it didn't cover mice and rats because I'd already read the
>whole thing. The same claim that mice and rats didn't have any protection
>under the law was being promoted by organizations like NAVs even back then,
>and I just don't think its accurate. Just because its not in the AWA doesn't
>mean they don't have other protections.
>
Any protection mentioned which is accordance with 
the AWA means that that animal has no protection 
from the AWA. Refusing to include them as animals
is a very sick loophole that allows researchers to 
exploit the very meaning of AW.

>> > I'm sure that there are numerous guidelines, both
>> >governmental and institutional, concerning ALL
>> >vertebrate subjects.
>> >
>> I've already shown you evidence from APHIS
>> indicating birds, rats of the genus Rattus and
>> mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research,
>> and horses not used for research purposes and
>> other farm animals, such as, but not limited to
>> livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as
>> food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or
>> intended for use for improving animal nutrition,
>> breeding, management, or production efficiency,
>> or for improving the quality of food or fiber are
>> excluded from the AWA's list of animals. These
>> animals represent 90% of the animals used in labs
>> and aren't protected by the legislation you claim to
>> be the "best piece of legislation that is there to
>> protect lab animals."
>
>They're not covered in the AWA but that doesn't 
>mean they're not covered by other things.

It does if those "other things" are in accordance
with the AWA, and funnily enough, they will be.

> I think the AWA is the best piece of legislation because it
>spells out exactly how much space each animal needs,etc. 

Not if those animals are on the 90% exclusion list.

>Just because it
>doesn't cover everything doesn't make it a piece of crap.
>
Then if there was a child welfare act which excluded
90% of children from its list of children, would you claim 
that it's the best piece of child welfare legislation, or 
would you conclude, as I would, that it's a piece of crap?

>> If you look carefully at each principle on that page,
>> you'll see they are all in accordance with the AWA,
>> and that means those animals not on the list of animals
>> aren't protected by that principle.
>
>Are you attempting to argue that there are no protections 
>in place for mice and rats?
>
Yes.

>> >"Whenever U.S. Government agencies develop requirements for testing,
>> >research, or training procedures involving the use of vertebrate animals,
>> >the following principles shall be considered"
>> >
>> >Vertebrates include all three.
>> >
>> The vertebrates not on the AWA's list of animals
>> aren't protected by the AWA or any legislation
>> which claims to protect animals in accordance
>> with the AWA.
>
>Are you claiming no legislation protects animals not covered by the AWA?
>
Yes.

>> Also, could you supply me some evidence to support
>> your claim that the excuse used for excluding certain
>> animals from the AWA's list of animals is in "order to
>> keep facilities clean for other animals being kept."
>
>My claim is that the AWA said that itself. It said to deal with avian and
>rodent pests. Can I take a copy of that book-sized manual and hand it to you
>over usenet? No I can't. If you want to check my words go order a copy for
>yourself.
>
There is no evidence to back your claim. The reasons
why animals are excluded are described here;
http://www.socialpsychology.org/pdf/lab99.pdf.
You don't know what you're talking about. These
animals aren't excluded from the AWA's list of 
animals in "order to keep facilities clean for other 
animals being kept." You made it up.